So poor Bangladesh gets hit with a 37% tariff because they have a bad trade deficit.
Bangladesh was NOT "hit with a 37% tariff". They were "assigned" a computed 37% tariff by the system used to establish tariff amounts in the absence of any negotiated arrangement. They might come away with 10%, maybe with 37%. Probably not more.
This covers all goods, with ag products facing steeper duties (18.1%) and non-agricultural goods slightly lower (14.1%). For U.S. exports specifically—things like cotton, scrap iron, or soybeans—the rates vary by product. Raw cotton, a big U.S. export to Bangladesh, often enters duty-free or at minimal rates (0-5%), while other goods like machinery or consumer items might hit 5-25%, plus a 15% VAT and sometimes supplementary duties. The U.S. exported $2.2 billion to Bangladesh in 2024, so these tariffs generated revenue, but nothing close to 74% across the board.
A lot is made of the calculation Trump used for the opening negotiation position. The opponents in the negotiations, every opponent involved, had the right to making an opening bid.
The process looks fair and reasonable. Opponents can make their arguments, explaining why they should have to pay less, or maybe none at all (which should be their opening position, of course).
We have no agreement to defend Bangladesh (like NATO, for example). But the US obvious has strategic interests in the region and would find it necessary to defend them in a neighborhood incident, at least in some cases. That, alone, is worth something.
This is extremely complicated business, and you need to just not jump to conclusions. We definitely have to raise money from this source and the others. This is all a product of Biden's and other Democrats' profligacy. |
